The American strategy in Eurasia
and the consequences of the war in Kosovo

By Alexandre del Valle
Alexandre del Valle, researcher at the Center of Research and of Geopolitical Analysis (CRAG) in Paris VIII, expert in international and strategic problems, is the author of an essay prefaced by the general Pierre Marie Gallois published in 1997: " Islam- USA, union against Europe " (l'age d'Homme).
He is the author of numerous articles or reporting in the journals of geopolitics (Herodote; Strategic, Quadrennial Geopolitics), or actual politic (Figaro Magazine, Spectacle du Monde, La Une, etc.), have all the essential problems of radical Islamic, terrorism, the Balkans, or European Safety.
In his last publication, " Wars against Europe: Bosnia, Kosovo, Tchetchenia" (200l, Syrtes Edition), Alexandre del Valle makes a general picture of the global chess-board after the cold War then he actualizes and confirms the analyses developed in his first essay and shown in the present article.



The geopolitical world situation after the Cold War has generated simultaneously a unipolar and multipolar world (Russia and USA are not more the two unique authorities to have enter the lists), the superiority of the American "Hyperforce" being, at present, without equal. Therefore, strategies beside the Atlantic Ocean know perfectly that this " unipolarity ", this hegemonic global position that they keep, permitted by the ruin of the soviet - communist and Russia threat, is momentary. Besides the American geopolitics directions should take into account some phenomena also consecutive to the Soviet Union falling and which Washington can hardly stop: general renovation of the Islam; reappearance or emerging of geopolitical and civilized Blocks "obstinate" or / and menacing (Russia, China, India, the Islamic world) risking to question one day American hegemony and working for the construction of a multipolar world; and, at last, the economic war between various geopolitical populations, first of all between America and Asia, and mainly between America and Europe. It is in this global context, that they decide to relocate the occidental - American air campaign " Joint Operation" begun against Serbia between March and in June 1999, the operation which exceeded infinitely the unique lot of Kosovo, as well as the desire of the new American Administration to begin again the armaments drive with the anti-missile project National Missile Defense (NMD).

A TOTAL STRATEGY
If USA manages to declare in a unilateral order wars almost everywhere undergoing not more then a ridiculous abstention or Chinese veto in UN or other gesticulation also symbolical as hopeless of Moscow origin, it is certainly because they are the most forceful in all the principal domains (economy, political, armed forces, technologies, and communication), but also because they: use at first non-military means characteristic to the modern war or " total war ". It integrates the mass media" or "informational" war- doubled by a " war of representations" - economic and technological war and mainly psychological war. Having undergone some military, political and economic failures here and there, in Vietnam, in Cuba, more recently in Somalia, and in a way in Iran or in Lebanon, then in Japan vis-a-vis to "the economic attack " during the years 70-80, USA managed, these ten last years, to conduct a perfect economic restoring, which can serve as a good example for the social-democrat Old Europe, and to realize a perfect reconstruction of all their guard system and economic intelligence. The American strategists and chiefs have completely changed the global strategy of their country, become mainly geoeconomic, conducting fusion, regrouping complementary industries, reconciling the political, administrative, economic, industrial, informational and military sectors. The outcome is an economically blossoming more competitive America, but also more offensive, aggressive and more than ever sure of herself even - Samuel Huntington uses the statement "arrogant", in any case, it is less naive and innocent that think the pro-Americans settled down in the Europe and however, for whom " the Americans, which have rescued us twice " - certainly - will be "big children unable to harm voluntary to the interests of their protected and joint Europeans"...

THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE DEPENDENCE OF THE "SOFT ZONES "
AND THE CONTAINMENT OF " THE RIGID ZONES "
According to the general Pierre Marie Gallois, initiator of the " force of the French striking ", various, geo-civilized areas of the world after the Cold War can be classified in two main categories: " rigid zones " and " soft zones ". " The Rigid Zones " signify, inside advanced or dynamical civilizations, nations or other political units capable to preserve their independence and sovereignty thus having will and means to challenge, at least in a given area", the superiority of the USA or other superpower. In the nomenclature of the American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, one from the leaders of the strategic American idea, " the rigid zones " refer to the foreground geostrategic actors or the States supplied with capacity and national desire sufficient to realize their power and their influence over the boundaries and to change the international relations, risking to affect the interests of America. " For different reasons - national magnitude, ideological satisfaction, religious messianism or economic claims - some States or foreground geostrategic actors would try to reach a regional prevailing position or global influence. Therefore USA have to pay particular attention to such actors", explains Brzezinsik. They will mark that, in this formulation, the former, adviser of the President Carter has considered as suspicious, even menacing, the unique fact, for a sovereign nation, to search for power and not to begin anew " to the benevolent superiority....

In " soft zones " they specify or nations or " an assemblage of not sovereign nations " and \or deprived of the main marks of power: economical, political or military (Latin Africa- America, etc.), or former geocivilisation blocks (European, Islamic, etc.), potentially very high-powered but weakened or partially having refused their sovereignty, that, it seems to be more and more the case of the Western Europe States which has completely rapport to NATO - thus to the USA for the guard of their Safety.

Schematically, the USA identify the two (or three) geoeconomical and civilised blocks capable to catch them up with the time: Asia (China or / and India) and Europe, in case the European Union would have subites shy attempts of independence or in case if Russia or Germany, even a coalition "anti-hegemonic" (strategic continental axis Paris - Berlin - Moscow), managed to inspect the European population. Therefore, to equalize impressive Asian mass, future " hard zone", and to immortalize the weakness and the strategic division of the Europeans and the Islam - African mass, the USA hope to integrate, under their global leadership, the West, Africa and the Islamic world. Really to support their hegemony on the world, Washington applies a global strategy based on four main strategic regional declinations:

1/ - To keep the North America and the Latin America as a protection against EU and to hinder the formation of independent authorities in the third world

2/ - To hinder the countries from Asia to become superpower capable to challenge the American domination counterbalancing the Asian "hard zone" by the amplification of the American hegemony in the main " soft zones " which are Africa, Europe and Islam.

3/ - to hinder the European " Fundamental-states " (Germany, France and \or Russia) to integrate and emancipate the continental Europe from the American - Atlantic tutelage then to keep the Western and Central Europe and as main bridgehead of United States in Eurasia.

4/ - to strengthen the dependence and the alliance of the Islamic countries to stop the ex shy autonomisation attempts" still pursuing Russia the strategy of containment and the control of the strategic subjects thanking to the Islamic "ram "

THE DOMINATION OF THE "EURASIA"
As explains Zbigniew Brzezinski, the main purpose of America is to dominate " /the Eurasia ", spacious territory which goes from the Western Europe to China through Near East and central Asia. Therefore USA consider the ex -USSR ancient muslin petrol and gas colonies as a strategic zone the most significant in the world. Washington should therefore do everything to remain the unique hegemonic power on the Eurasian Continent. The classical geopolitics covet, reminds Brzezinski, that the superiority on the Eurasian Continent is a point of support to " the global domination ". Certainly USA, external power to the Eurasia, - are henceforth the first global authority thanking to its direct presence on the three peripheral zones of the Continent, position enlarging their zone of influence to the States of the" continental hinterland". Nevertheless, for the American strategies, the Eurasia remains the unique theatre on which a potential rival of America could eventually occur.

There is a key to each American geostrategic doctrine, in its "intervention" declinations of Clinton type as in its "isolation" version ", such as represented by the Bush jr. new command. But the isolation/intervention dichotomie denotes a consideration of nuances then a tangible reality because of the planetary "responsiblties" of the "Hyperforce ".

Really, this doctrine of global strategy of the USA is registered (s'inscrit) in Britainnic geopolitical tradition representing evolution of the world as the outcome of rivalry between " continental powers" and " marine powers". Father of classical geopolitical, we owe to the Englishman Halford John Mackinder (1861-1947) the elevation in the general theory of the conflicting dichotomy Earth /Sea. Really, the Britannic geography advances the existence of " a base of the world" (or "basis"zone), located in the heart of the Eurasia, integrating, grosso modo the present Russia, the Siberia, the Caucus, and a part of the Eastern Europe, irreversible springboards to the domination of Eurasian Continent. Around the "basis" zone, which they name Heartland, literally " the heart of the earth" is in Eurasia it is that they call " a Limiting internal half moon ", zone of contact between the Continent and the Seas (Iberian Peninsula, Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Turkey, the Close East, Persian Gulf, Pakistan, India, Indochina, South Chinese islands, etc.). At the extremity " Limiting internal half moon" the are two key- archipelagoes, Great Britain and Japan called " exterior archipelagoes", having reached the apogee due to Seas domination. At last, around this " basis block" and the marine edges there are the " large islands ": America, Africa, Indonesia and Australia, which organizes " Insular external half moon " in the middle with a interposed zone composed from deserts.

Mackinder is afraid that, the range of the huge resources and due to the development of iron roads and main roads, the "basis" zone (Heartland) goes to the peripheries and it managed to dominate above all the Eurasian continent, that then to enlarge the conquests above all the seas and lands of the planet. Firstly, Mackinder considers that of the worse of the threats is represented by the prompt growth to the East Germany of Willem II (Drang Nach Osten), even by a eventual russian-germanic " continental union ", two scripts capable to provoke a geopolitical unit of the Large Continent and to put an end to the Anglo-Saxon world superiority. In 1919, the geographer requires thus an emergence, in the East Europe, " a belt of States" capable to organize a buffer-zone Russia and Germany in order to avoid that the last, always more offensive, doesn't provoke by the arms the unification of the "basis zone". But stating the shock caused by the Bolshevik revolution, Mackinder determines again, since 1943, the concept of the Heartland: " It is the Northern and internal party of Eurasia ", that is the ex- USSR or present ISC, overflowing slightly on the central and East Europe. In view of universal and imperial claims, the young Soviet Union appears particularly as a "continental power", much more spacious and more high-powered then Germany and more direct, by its desire to progress to the central and East Europe and warm Seas, to take the control of the totality of the Continent and to chase the " marine powers". John. Halford Mackinder sums up the stake in these terms: " that who controls the East Europe commands " the heart of the land (heartland; that whom controls " the heart of the land" commands " the island of the world" (World Island) " that who inspects " the island of the world."

"Commands the world". In this epoch already, the Eastern Europe constitutes one of the more significant strategic zones of the world:
Not only the Balkans connects the Heartland to the Mediterranean sea, a secular purpose for Russia, but the Central and the Eastern Europe is the bridge, the key of the vault, of the eventual unification of the Large Continent. They understand better thus as Great Britain then USA, Powers of the Sea, always have put significant efforts to deprive Russia of the strategic depth and of the access to the warm seas in the Caucasus, in the central Asia and in the Balkans.

In his work " The geography of peace " (1944), the american political analyst Nicholas Spykman, other theorist of the paradigm the Earth / the sea, advances the idea according to which the real " basis zone" is the "Rimland", another large key concept of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics assigning " the intermediate region between the Heartland and the coastal seas ". More optimist that J. H. Mackinder, Spykman thought that if the Power of the Sea was capable to organize the Rimland peoples that they block the course to the Seas of main Power of the ground, the conquest of the world by the Power of the Heartland would remain completely theoretical. Therefore the statement of Nicholas Spykman reverse that of his predecessor still confirming the fundamental idea of the rivalry land/ the sea and reaffirming it also NATO scientific socle, thus the purpose was to create a series of pacts of alliance with the countries located on Rimland in order to contain Russian-soviet Heartland: " that who dominates above Rimland dominates above Eurasia; that who dominates above Eurasia keeps the destiny of the World in his hands ". The spykman theory containing of continental powers will have great influence to the elaboration American foreign policy and it will be at the origin of the containment doctrine, prepared by Washington during the Cold War.

FROM THE "CONTAINMENT" AGAINST THE COMMUNIST BLOCK
TO THE " NEO- CONTAINMENT " AGAINST " THE ORTHODOX BLOCK "
If we transpose the classical theory of containment on the geopolitical modern scene, Washington should prevent at any cost the emergence of a Eurasian power capable to contest its global benevolent hegemony and to acquire a prevailing position in Eurasia. The speech goes thus, for the American strategies, it is not only "to contain" and "to expel" (roll back) Russia (heartland) before she does not recover, but also to neutralize China power rise and at last to keep the European Union, " a soft zone ", in its weak and dependent condition. The power rise of China and Asia being almost impossible to restrain, America should refuse to dominate the integrality of the Eurasian Continent and to be concentrated on the western and central part: European Union, central and East Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, central Asia. Washington considers thus two short-term priorities: at first, to fortify the vassalage / union of the "western" Europe, a "soft zone" the most sure. Secondly, to continue the policy of slacking- isolation of Russia. Whence the clearly shown desire, USA "to surround" Russia and " the orthodox Block ", by " a peripheral and internal Islam - western slope " (new "Rimland"), thus the common military- strategic system is NATO. Whence also the American perseverance to exercise many pressures on Brussels that Turkey integrates the European Union; the extension of the Alliance to the central Europe countries; and, mainly, the fortifications of Turk - American cooperation inside it.

In relation to European Est, USA conduct thus a double policy consisting: first to enlarge NATO to the door of Russia, world" the anti-Russian nations on a way to industrialization from the ex-Soviet block, of Catholic - Protestant culture (Hungary, Poland, ex- Czechoslovakia, etc.) and Islamic culture (Turkey, Muslim republics of central Asia, Bosnia, Albania - Kosovo, etc.); secundo to weaken Russia, "to expel" it to Asia and to cut it from the Western Europe. The speech goes about that thus to divide European Continent in two, reactivating " a new Cold War " between Byzantine ex- soviet-communist East and an American West, a new " geocultural shock" between " the two Europe ", opposed one to another around the strategic Islam - western and social-economical stumbling blocks (obstacle).

Therefore are explained, not only the above mentioned " war of Kosovo ", but also, in the beginning of a year 2000, the surprising mass-media western support brought to the ultra-fundamental Chechens connected to the Talibans and the attempt to delete Russia from " the international community " and even to exclude it from Council of Europe, it at the moment, when they justify inside the European Union the entrance of Turkey, a genocide state, anti-democratic and militarist, which have things in common with the reprisal operations not less violent then these organized by the Russians in Tchetchenia and even the Serbs in Kosovo. But The Council of the Europe is less inclined to the lacks of " the rights of the Person " accomplished by a Turkey more, than ever " NATO south support in Eurasia " (cf Brzezinski). The main zones of instability in the world, have the mark of the American strategy " divide and impera " and " of two weights, two measures ". A suicidal strategy not to doubt of a long term for the West, certainly, as it makes the game of a sunnit fundamentalism pro- Saudi and pro- Taliban, declared enemy of the West and also of Iran, India, China and Russia, but that the American companies, ready for everything to win new markets, and the elites from beside the Atlantic ocean blinded by their " desire of global power", protect, what that is the price paid by the "Allied", abused by the "occidentist" (Zinoviev) and "atlantist"speech, "G-string" semantic and simbolical of the American warmongoing hegemony.


THE REAL " MILITARY PURPOSES "
AND THE STRATEGIC MOTIVATIONS OF THE WAR IN KOSOVO
In retrospect, more after the operation of the Joint Forces in Kosovo, they realize, from the geopolitics point of view; that the NATO against the ex-Yugoslavia was mainly intended to compromise the construction of the independent and forceful Europe. Under the diabolism of the Enemy - Serbian - in which the majors western states were engaged, pretending to bombard Kosovo that " to avoid humane catastrophe " which these same bombardments have however started, there the socialist Yugoslavia, multinational unit not subordinating to the extension of NATO in the Balkans, USA have begun to destroy - for the benefit of the "ethnically cleared " of the Serbs, gypsies (Croat - Muslim federation of Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo) and even the Jews (Kosovo) - after having compromised any peace issue from the crisis ("agreement of Rambouillet) .

Among deep strategic and political motivations which supervised the beginning of the " war in Kosovo ", we distinguish two types of " the war purposes ":

" The Immediate (direct) military purposes ", connected to the Balkan and Kosovan theatre, and " the strategic military purposes ", surpassing widely the framework of the battlefield and coming back in frameworks of the "general" strategy of the USA and the NATO in Eurasia.

In general, " the immediate (direct) military purposes of the NATO " and Washington, during the United Force Operation , were the following:

1 / the beginning of the resettlements of Albanians of Kosovo and the aggravation of the " human accident ",
2/ division - destruction of the ex-Yugoslavia and the popular raising against the Belgrade regime,
31 justification of the NATO expansion in the Balkan and in Eurasia and rise of the industry of the American protection (interdiction).

As to the politico-strategic purposes of average and long-term, or " the strategic military purposes ", we may distinguish from it main five:
· actual creation of the Big Albania with the purpose to destabilize the Balkans;
· the installation of an international Protectorate of the NATO in the Balkans and in Albania allowing to the USA to divide and to surround the Russian- orthodox world;
· To establish between the Western Europe and the Slav-orthodox world " a stable breakage civilization" (historical, psychological, spiritual, political-economical and geostrategic);
- to compromise the construction of the European union and to make of this a head of the American hegemony in Eurasia;
- to facilitate the creation of the enclaves and the Islamic establishment in the Balkan in the double purpose to destabilize Europe, strengthening the breakage of the Orthodoxy / the West and to correct the affairs of the USA in the Islamic world.

Being conscious, that the Strong and Independent Europe, would be able to surpass America in all areas of power, especially economic, the American strategists want to warn at any cost the least awakening, to kill in the egg the least shy attempt to the European independence, in a case if clear heads would decide to restore the Big continental Europe, reconciling its " two lungs", orthodox and western. Whence the American desire to weaken and plant the European continent, switching - on NATO's behalf - Turkey in the European Union and deleting it more from Russia, for the constitution of the Big independent and strong continental Europe, capable to compete the USA - but by this given impossible - never to happen.

"NEO-CONTAINMENT" to a " NEW COLD WAR? "
Through this grid of reading, the deep bases of the " war of Kosovo " seem clearer: each thrown bomb on Pristina or Belgrade is equaled to awake the old bitterness between the two " European lungs", to open painful wounds which, from the Big Split to the division of Yalta, passing through the War of Crimea, have divided them in the past - to the detriment of the independence and to the detriment of geostrategic unity of the Old Continent - and which was precisely about to be closed again after the fall of the Wall of Berlin and Perestroika. Briefly to establish between the "West" and European "East" a new " Iron and Blood curtain", to lift " the West against the Orthodox Block ".

Finally, the Washington war policy in product, during the " war of Kosovo " aspired to revive the "shock of the civilization" the West / orthodoxy, even, a New Cold war between the "Occident" and the rest of the countries. As each bomb, thrown to Belgrade was also received (met) as a slap in the face of Moscow and a warning in New Delhi and Peking. Also is not useless to be engaged on bombardment of Embassy of China during the war of Kosovo, officially obliged to " a technical mistake ", but in reality intended to concretize a little bit more the warning - a slap in the face to which we made a hint. Let's remind the facts: May, 8, 1999, at the strong moment of bombardment of the NATO against Serbia, three American ballistic missiles bombarded Embassy of China in Belgrade, having killed three Chinese journalists and doing about twenty wounded. The services of the message communication of the NATO and Washington have expressed their "apologies" explaining in the beginning, that a maneuver of Serbs "would illuminate" unsuccessfully a building in time of the "pass" of the American B2. After hardly three days, service French safety external service (GENERAL MANAGEMENT of EXTERNAL SAFETY) have informed, that this explanation was not inspiring trust. Also, as it will be studied subsequently, the "mistake" would follow from the use of "bad American maps" having always Embassy of China on the former address. All the same, the fact that the Embassy of China was bombarded by an American strategic B2, coming directly from the Pentagon instead of the NATO, has invited to set serious questions. Because during war of Kosovo, about half of bombardments, mostly strategic, were carried out since the American buildings not giving NATO any account. Anyway Peking will not accept the American explanations and interprets the bombardment of the embassy as a warning. Having placed this event in parallel with the project of expansion, by the USA, of the antimissile systems in Asia, China will decide then to double the efforts in the field of strategic armaments, especially in the framework of cooperation with Russia. From their side, the Russians made active their researches in the question on antimissile technologies, while China intend to invest about 10 milliards dollars to modernize the nuclear arms and to be able to level" from here to 2010, a good hundred of rockets in the big reach capable to escape any nuclear attack. Already, as remarks P.M.Gallois, expert of nuclear power and the initiator, of the "French shock force", the ballistic missile DF.31 which just was tested, will reach 8000 Km. So, neither India, nor Pakistan will not stay indifferent to arms of China...

The desire of Americans to exclude to the latest moment the Russians from the negotiations Rambouillet, as well as the bombardment " by mistake" of the Embassy of China in Serbia, may occur really as deliberate desires, from the USA to start a New Cold War, some have told " the Cold Peace", this time between, on the one hand, " the advanced West " including New industrialise countries and Japan, and, on the other hand, " the obstinate world ", " not- the occidental " (principally: Russia - Byelorussia Yugoslavia; China and Northern Korea; India), in a sense (direction) where understand (the members of an economic Forum from Davos and singers of liberal economy. According to the American strategists economists, the camp of "recalcitrant" would potentially be susceptible of disputing Washington hegemony in the world, whence the ambitious American anti-missile program intended to neutralize Russian and Asians nuclear powers.

As we have seen, the American strategy to dominate in Eurasia and the elimination refractory authorities to the American unipolarity has as objective to destabilize, thanking to the Islamic stumbling block, the three competitors the most "dangerous" " Hyperpower": India, in taken (Kashmir) with the Pakistani - Afghani radical Islamic before supported by CIA in Afghanistan against the Soviet people; China, against the wahhabit separatists in Xin Jang Muslim rich in hydrocarbon; and Russia, against which the chechen-saudi from Afghanistan veterans connected to Pentagone and in CIA from the middle of the '80 (Bessaïev, Khattab), threaten to set fire to Caucasus and to Central Asia in order to deprive Moscow from the petroleum road. It is necessity to state that the main zones of instability in the world have the mark of the American strategy " divide and impera ".

"THE RIGHT OF INTERFERENCE " AND "THE WAR IN KOSOVO ":
THE MILITARY FACTOR AND CHAIN DESTABILIZATION
En scorning the principles of the international Law, beginning by that of the national sovereignty, in the mane of " humane interference " with variable geometry, western responsible faces have opened Pandora box of ethnic nationalism and separatism ("Kosovo Syndrome "). "The diplomacy of raids and the embargo " (Gallois) constitutes henceforth one of the main sources of the conflict in the world, a serious threat to the Peace, which is more accentuated by the new American anti-missile program, officially will turn against " the rogue States", but really intended to neutralize the Eurasian powers, and to begin again the nuclear armaments drive, breaching the contract of not proliferation from 1972 (ABM).

Probably, the interference of " humanitarian " type, traditionally called "Petersberg missions ", as it these from Kossovo, risk in a close future to become money in circulation to be more and more used for legalizing punishing wars (Serbia) or neocolonial (Iraq) who do not say their name but which has the mark of the American hegemony. The magnification and the legalization growing of this type of interference result directly from the New American "global strategy " tending to make NATO evolve of a collective pact of Defense against the soviet-communist threat to an offensive organ, auto-perceptible ensuring "The Global Security" of the USA when the interests of these, disguised behind those of the " West ", - are "menaced ": power supply, marine traffic, holder against the civil populations, geostrategic reposition, etc...

The foundation principles of the international Law, thus of the Atlantic Charter, of the Charter of the Organisation of the United Nations as different International Courts considered the sovereignty of nations, until now key subjects of the international Law, the sacred - holy national sovereignty became actual obstacle in NATO intervention evolution and at the new American global strategy.

" Before this long geostrategic decline of the modern history which threatens greatly the peace with the instability its self, the recent desire to exceed the sovereignty of the nations by the famous duty of humane interference adds more to the chaos, to the threat of the geopolitical destabilization of the world " comments Paul Virilio. As the consequences of a neo-imperial and anti-sovereign evolution of USA foreign policy, under Clinton Administration, who encouraging in Russia, in central Asia, in China, in Iraq, in ex-Yugoslavia and in the other place, the territorial branches, are manifested as one "a chain destabilization" of the world, announced by the extreme state distribution (micro-states) from the beginning of the years 90. Therefore, the virus of the rebellions, the separations and other " self determinations " requests dear to Washington since the President Woodrow Wilson (" the declaration Wilson " from 1915 on " the right of people self-determination") has its pure belligerent dynamics, it even if the new Bush Administration Bush put a point really, as it pretends, to the USA " arrogant" hegemony, what can still doubt about it.

The anti-sovereign dynamics of " the right of interference " risks to return against USA itself and its allied, so Israel and Turkey. " The First war of NATO in the east Europe omens badlyy the ability of USA to assure long term peace to the era of world proliferation of dangers ", writes the philosopher - strategist Paul Virilio, (...) failing to manage to suppress the bomb, they decide thus to suppress State - Nation (...) henceforth entrusted with all the sovereign defects, with all the nationalist crimes ", except the American nationalism, certainly, more, than ever amplified by the internationalism of the fight, G-strings of the world "national - hegemony " of USA, winners of the War of representations and the real recipients of the process of globalization.

Failing to have brought the peace in the Balkans, where it contributed to revive the interstate wounds and hatreds, the intervention of NATO in Kosovo re-light, by the effect of chain traction, the war in Caucasus and in many points of the world. Really, the fights opposed violently the Azerbaijani and Armenian only after three weeks from the end of raids in Kossovo, the Ministers advisers of the Azerbaijani President Aliev demanding at their turn the interference NATO... Against Armenia, the interference which has revealed to result from the Kosovo ones, the "West" being henceforth supposed to be automatically to the Muslim part in taken with in acceptances with the ex-communist Slav - Orthodox. As it was exactly at the moment of Belgrade reissue before NATO and thus victorious end of the UCK internationalization strategy, during the summer of 1999, that rebellious Chechens, invested Daghestan territory and declared "the independence" of the Islam Republic on the name of " the right of people to dispose of them". Convinced that "West", failing to act militarily against Moscow, protected them at least on the diplomatic plan, and credited from the exterior side for the petrol-strategic reasons that we have developed highly, the pro-independence chechens, allied to Talibans pro- Saudi from Kabul and close to the wahhabit Bin Laden terrorist web, have intentionally amplified, from 1996, their daily acts of terrorist guerrilla (kidnapping, murder of policemen and civil Slavs, attempts, etc.), multiplying intentionally provocations (bomb 53 dead at the station Vladkavkaz, murderer raids and ambushes of patrols during the three last years of relative peace, pipeline sabotage in Daghestan, the closing of Chechen territory to the petroleum of the oil pipeline passing through Grozny, attempts in Moscow etc.). They infringe unilaterally the agreement of the termination of military operations concluded in 1996 between Moscow and Grozny - slightly as UCK have infringed the agreements, Milosevic - Holbrooke the preceding months the operation Joint Forces to push Belgrade in its extremest erasures, the rebellious Islamic Chechen will adopt UCK victorious strategy: provocation-repression-internationalization, in the contempt to thousand of victims, the Islamic leaders aware that their " the worse strategy" would cause inevitably awful repression from Moscow side which could not afford to lose Russian strategic territory crossed by "way of petroleum ".

It is also during then after the issue of Kosovo from crisis that were perpetrated, with an almost general indifference of the international community, terrible mass murders of Christian minorities in East Timor, in Indonesia. " It is not because we bombarded Belgrade that we are going to bombard Dili " explained Sandy Berger, the chief of the National Council of American Safety, soon after the mass murders in Dili. " Timor - East is not Kosovo ", increases James Rubim, the official representative of the State Department. However, the next day after the war in Kosovo, the President Clinton declared that operation Joint Forces was going to serve as an example: " That you live in Africa, in central Europe or anywhere in an other place, if somebody wants to make mass crimes against the civil innocent population, he has to know that, in the correspondence with our possibilities, we will stop him". The less than we could tell is that the actuality in Timor and in Caucasus has not confirmed the good intentions of the American President.

Since then, the crucial problem is posed, how could the "Western" henceforth believe and to afford themselves, having destroyed ex- Yugoslavia, provoked the death of millions of civilian in Iraq after 11 years of raids and embargoes, and let the Turks, the Indonesian act with impunity, and so other military or fundamental dictatorships, to denounce the repression perpetrated by Moscow, Peking or any other significant State contrary to these minorities? The precedent of the war in Kosovo constitutes after all a double encouragement to various warmongering protagonists everywhere in the world: on the one hand, the pro-independent of every country risk to lance in " the worse strategies " of UCK type (revendication-provocation-internalisation) with more or less successes, Washington not being at all ready to spend. milliards for all the separatists of the planet, as it was confirmed repeatedly by the new President Bush and Colin Powell; on the other hand, stating the risk to see their sovereignty menaced by a separatist wave and the extension " the rights of interference ", the forceful States of the whole world, conscious that the USA will not do anything to stop them, risking, as it is case of Russia, to profit for "solving" they also "their problems" in a resolute manner (Moscow having however inspired, with a relative success from the American doctrine " zero dead " and air offensive of NATO in Kosovo).

Since then, we must state that, far from installing " the best world", the New Global Order" more fair" for the benefit of the persecuted minorities in the whole world and the putting on the walking pace of the authoritarian States, it is something like " the rights of the more forceful regionally " (each regional basis-state using Force " comme bon lui semble " in the own area) who has replaced de facto to the traditional and imperfect international order symbolized by the United Nations Organization. Everything in the name of " the right of interference " in variable geometry " turned exclusively to enemies indicated or not of the USA and of the " less forceful ". In reality, that they speak about the pro- American authoritarian basis zones as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Pakistan (unofficially) or Indonesia or "anti-hegemonic" authorities not subordinating to the " western values", as Russia, India or China, these different protagonists of weight felt themselves twice stimulated in their unilateral clean strategy by the crisis in Kosovo. They understood the message: only the States not supplied with strategic, rather weak arms, as Iraq or Serbia, and/or damaging to the American economic interests, have the vocation to be sanctioned by the raids of NATO in the name " of the right of the Person ". The ones as (Turkey, Indonesia, State of the Gulf, etc.) are not even subjects to the critic. The others as (China, Russia, etc.) reproach, in a formal manner, their acts. One reason more to unstitch as soon as possible and without witnesses...

" Among the factors that contribute to the destabilization of the multinational States, comments Sergio Romano, the former ambassador of Italy in Moscow, the most important is the perseverance with which the USA and the Europe swung the flag of the rights of the Person. The West overlooks that the rights of the person, in the context of multinational communities of Central and East Europe, really means the right of ethnic - national communities. It supposes to protect the individual rights and it sends a signal that the minorities and their leaders understand as an objective encouragement to their requests of autonomy and independence. It supposes to protect the democracy and it blows involuntarily the wind of nationalism. It supposes that to protect its fundamental values, but it exposes to danger its main interest: the stability " 9. Therefore the statement " the rights of the Person " does not reveal the same significance in France, where it is connected to the defense of the individual, than in Chechnya, in Bosnia, or in Kosovo, where it means clearly the independence.

At last, in Moscow, in Peking, in Belgrade as in New Deli, " the rights of the Person " and " the duty of interference ". Implemented by the separatist movements of Caucasus, of Xin Jang, of Kosovo or of Kashmir, are synonymous to the western disintegration and aggression. Thus it is simultaneously comprehensible and predictable that some secessionist minorities. Frequently also severe, nationalist and a little bit democratic, so called passing, that the governments which suppress them, try to dramatize their situation, calling even intentionally, if it is necessary (to see infra the reactions of violence " of an oppressive regime " in order to strengthen the discredit of the last. " The Central State reacts calling nationalist feelings of its own public opinion; the suppressed minority answers in its turn with nationalism all also radical. There is enough then of a scintilla to put light in powders. Paradoxically, the campaign for the benefit of the rights of the Person generates nationalism and it makes of the international stability a perspective even more exceeded", concludes Sergio Romano. The speech does not go there of an universal phenomenon, certainly - that would come back to put at the same level victims and hangmen - number of minorities in the world being victims of the terrible prosecutions from the totalitarian or authoritarian regimes side. But it lies with the geopolitics, a delicate problem to distinguish, as far as possible, the fake from the truth, or the real facts from their representations, very subjective. So what the main means of observations that the citizen lambda disposes? The media. These, far being the main detail of a hypothetical conspiracy, - as human beings who operates, subjectively, thus manipulated. It belongs thus also to the geopolitics in order to know why they cover mediating such event more than the other one. So risking to write as the schoolboy of Lapalisse, we remind nevertheless that " the right of humane interference " is not really invoked that the West does not begin NATO militaries interferences only for the benefit of the minorities benefiting of a western pure political support, support picked up and justified by an intense preamble media cover , that will benefit happy elected Albanians to the detriment of the animist or Christian minorities in Sudan, Indonesia or India, the Serb minorities from Kosovo, the Lebanons seized by Syria, hundreds of thousands Russians chases from Kazakhstan and both Caucasus, etc..

Really the new ethic - political principle of " militaries interference" for the benefit of the minorities (separatist) "persecuted" is not applied of an universal and fair manner in different regions of the world, and it is there the main Achille's heel. Certainly, they are not to be fact, interfering in China or in Russia is explained by the military - strategic of these two authorities, without common measures with Iraq of 18 millions inhabitants, the small Serbia of 10 millions souls or the little Serb Republic from Bosnia. But the "Western" have not even begun the sketch of a preventive or punishable action in comparison to that from Kosovo in Africa: Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone or Congo, where are regularly perpetrated murders much more bloody and massive. Idem in Turkey, where about 20 000 Kurds were killed during the last decades in the operations of cleaning by the armed forces from Ankara, which will be in spite of everything integrated, the top of the irony of the interference in the variable geometry, to the forces of NATO arrived to hinder the Serbs to pursue their eradicated policy in Kossovo... In other words, " democracies interfere, only when the protection of the human rights coincide with the particular political interests ", says the Ambassador Sergio Romano. In this case, Iraq, on which Americans and English continued to throw bombs during 1999 and 2000, without any mandate from ONU, after more than ten years of embargo and raids, is, with Serbia, the brightest demonstrating of this coincidence between the strategic interests, " the right of the most forceful ", and " the rights of humane interference ".

According to the American strategy of "total" hegemony which we have developed earlier, the strategy tending to hinder any rival, opponent or potential enemy to challenge American global superiority , the different interferences done during a dozen of year in the Balkans have the triple advantage to allow USA to weaken structurally the competitor- allied to the European Union still pursuing the purpose of "pushing back" of Russia and notifying China - or any other potential recalcitrant - that the United States want to conserve their " global leadership ". Therefore the fact to release in an unilateral way from ONU does it allow to NATO and to the USA to avoid any of Russian or Chinese veto, even same French or English in the Organization of the United Nations Security Council, in case the "allied" Europeans would have some desire of autonomy and if so ever "anti-hegemonic" alliance such as feared by Brzezinski came to demand a "multipolar" world. It is in this global strategic context and new international order that other USA strategic decisions concept are inserted, especially "the new strategic concept", that Bush jr new Administration seems wanting to amend, that the media have named vainly "the new stars war", one of the forceful elements of the presidential program of Bush command.

" NEW NATO STRATEGIC CONCEPT ":
TO ALLOW TO WASHINGTON TO INTERFERE EVERYWHERE AND ANYTIME WITHOUT ONU MANDATE
On a right line " of the Strategic Concept " from 1991, " the New Strategic Concept " of the Alliance officially adopted on the 23rd and on the 24th of April 1999 in Washington by the States - Members, on the occasion of the fiftieth NATO anniversary, has devoted, in Kosovo war favour, in the name of the positive right of the " more forceful" action, the Americans desire to release NATO action of the legal and decisive ONU tutelary and to so recognized in the Organization an auto - seized right. In the figure 48, ", the New Strategic Concept " stipulated that " the maintenance of the security and of the stability of the Euro-Atlantic region dresses an primordial importance. An important purpose of the Alliance, and of its forces consists to move away the risks resisting rapidly to the potential crisis (...). In case of crisis putting in danger the Euro-Atlantic stability {...) the joint military forces could be called to conduct the answer operations to the crisis ". In terms more violent, it means that, henceforth, NATO was going to be officially skillful to interfere military whereas it considers that the stability is threatened in the Europe, against the sovereign countries, including if the States " capable to harm to the safety of the alliance members", as Yugoslavia, have not attacked any of the sovereign States, being or not member of NATO, the element which has caused however, until then, after the foundation texts of the Atlantic Organization, any interference, by Charter of NATO virtue or this derive of the organization is to put in parallel with other derive, all also anxious for the Peace: the speed with which USA opt for military solutions and substitute " pressing air " practice with diplomatic mechanisms. Before the operation Joint Forces, the Americans had already bombarded Sudan and Afghanistan in August 1998, the continuation of the attempts against American embassies in Africa, Bosnia, in 1995, and mainly of Iraq, between 1990 and 2000, since the war in Gulf and in a recurrent manner until now..

How did we come to this? Really, things have progressively developed after the Soviet Union falling. A first stage has been overcome to the extension of geographical NATO area with creation of the Northern- Atlantic Counsel of Cooperation (COCONA), renamed " Euro-Atlantic Partnership " (CPEA), that the official purpose was to assure the safety on all the European Continent. Its structure will be rapidly enlarged to 38 members, Among which a large part of countries from the Central and East Europe, excluding ex- Yugoslavia, which has just reinstated with the Elder Brother- the Russians. The foundation texts of the Northern -Atlantic Counsel of Cooperation allowed to him to treat Bosnia - Herzegovina, Kosovo, and other crisis able to be made in former Yugoslavia, the conflicts in Caucasus, in Moldova and even of civil war in Tajikistan, as recognized by the final declaration of its convention on the 18th of December 1992, hold in Brussels in NATO residence. To reduce the opposition, presumable of Moscow, Boris Eltsine having promptly protested against the extension of NATO in Eurasia, of Washington made a appeasement gesture restoring " the Foundation Act Russia - NATO " on the 27-th of May 1997, in Paris, which installed conjoint constant council between Russia and NATO, the last one being theoretically allowed to participate to the deliberations of the members of the Alliance. But it was only a " fake appearance", comments Paul Maria de la Gorce, Russia not having in reality any mean or competence to oppose the decisions of countries members of NATO. However, they will state it with crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo, Moscow will neither be listened nor even really consulted by the" western Partners ". The following stage will be a pure and simple extension of NATO in all the East Europe, and even, in the way that the American strategists consider it, on all Eurasian continent. In this regard, the integration of Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary will create a precedent. It will induce the Baltic Countries, however populated in a large party by Russians (Estonians, Lithuanians), and even Ukrainians to knock at NATO's door (Charter NATO- Ukraine from 1997), while the thing was equivalent, for the neighbor Russia " to a real casus belli (occasion to war). Parallel to the regional forum, to the Mediterranean Dialogue, initiated in 1995, there will be soon the Balkan countries, as Macedonia, and even the central Asia and Caucus, as Azerbaijan, who will come nearer to NATO, through other intermediate ad hoc structure, " the "Partnership For Peace". The adoption of " a New Strategic Concept " in April 1999, in Kosovo war favour and by virtue of a sort of "positive right of the accomplished fact", has marked a real turn in the history of the international relations but formalized already an existing reality from 1991: Atlantic Organization is" in a condition to become a constant instrument of interference in crisis and conflicts, finding thus a new justification of its existence and perpetuity". For the first time from 1945, the unique international legitimacy recognized and allowed by the States, the Organization of the United Nations, was moved away without even being replaced by an equivalent structure, but to the profit of the New Global Order American unilateral. Heavy consequences, this shock of planetary Order installs implicitly a new form of the right; this of the " More forceful " to reinstate statement dedicated by Ignacio Ramonet.

Before a recent period, USA acted through the international organization that they controlled more or less (ONU, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, etc.), " the priority is now given to a lonely exercise of the authority and to the unilateral actions, explains the American Michael T Klare, professor in Hampshire College. There are slightly, two tendencies of foreign American policy, oscillating between multilateralism and unilateralism, counterbalanced. Stating France, Chinese and Russian reticence according to the new raids in Iraq, Washington bombarded again and without the mandate from ONU Iraq's strategic objectives. With, any ambiguity has disappeared: as Clinton as Madeleine Albright, James Rubin affirm highly and forcefully that USA will interfere henceforth unilaterally or they would like and as good it will seem to them, with or without any agreement of the "allied" and of the international organizations ".

But the fact that the USA are not satisfied of the ONU function from 1995 and do not hide more their unilateralism, it does not mean that they have refused to the " western coalitions ", always very valuable, and intended for weakening the strategic motivations and American responsibilities inside systems formally multilateral, supposed to represent the " international community ". According to the general Jean Salvan, expert in strategic problems, the use of the " western coalitions " in order to finish successfully the unilateral operations remain a constant American policy since several years and it participates that it names the "inquisitive strategy", by which the hunter " set the ferret, then seized the prey captured by the ferret". In April 1996, Robbin Laird, former adviser of Brzezinski, however has precised the role of the "ferrets", mainly represented by the European "Allied" from NATO: " USA should plan and implement a multi-regional strategy and to create a web of allied companies working tightly with the allied ". Therefore Laird makes the list of the different privileged partners or regional "ferrets" of the USA: Great Britain, in the Atlantic and the Northern Europe; Germany in the Central Europe; France in the French-speaking Africa; Israel and Turkey in the Close East; Japan and Korea in Extremely - East.

Therefore the New Strategic Concept of NATO had as vocation to allow to the White House, under the coverage "of an international coalition ", to use American and NATO armed forces everywhere where it will be necessary to protect the military, economic - industrial and strategic interests of the USA, " As a unique nation capable to conduct operations of large scale integrated [polyvalent] on theatres lying far from its boundaries, the USA occupy an unique position. This capacity allows to the USA to dominate foreign crisis and to answer even if they have no constant presence in the region and do not possess that a limited infrastructures (...). The USA should thus manage to overcome, everywhere where they want to interfere, any form of resistance , as it is not always possible to rely on the local allies in order to protect the American interests abroad " recognize the official faces from Pentagone. Planned and managed by Washington, in function of the unique priorities and American geopolitics interests, under the cover of those, less shameful, of the " West ", NATO do not seize itself, that it can act where it wants, when it wants and almost everywhere where it decides, against anyone who will dare to challenge the American hegemony disguised behind the representation " West ", referring to that, even more dreamy, of globalism or " citizenship of the world".

NEW AMERICAN ANTIMISSILE PROJECT: GLOBAL SUPERIORITY AND THE RELAUNCH OF THE ARMAMENTS DRIVE
According to the New National Strategy of the American Security, the Senate in republican majority, adopted, within the winter 1999, a new anti-missile program tending to assure safety of a part of the American territory and some allied countries in the Asian zone. Become one of the main elective arguments of the victorious candidate to the USA presidency, George Bush jr, and one of the most forceful points of the new American doctrine of security and of foreign policy, this program should be divided, in principle, on two main shutters: at first National Missile Defense (NMD), intended to protect the American territory and capable to destroy the ballistic missiles thrown by an enemy country before it permeates in the high atmospheric stratums, secondly the Threaten Missile Defense (TMD), a similar program planned to be used on the external theatres, mainly in Asia. P The Pentagone has thus foreseen to spend more than 65 milliards of Francs (10 milliards of Euro) on this project between 2000 and 2005.

The antimissile program - is in reality one of the strategic priorities of new republican Administration, USA not having now the capacity to arm itself against the simultaneous attacks " of the rogue States": northern Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Libya, etc., some having the ability to line the missiles what actual capacity (force) varies between 1500 and 8000 Km, but that the performances will be improved the next years. Less ambitious than the project "stars war lanced by Ronald Reagan, that the purpose was to destroy the adverse missiles installed in high atmospheric stratums since a space platforms, the project NDM will be this time based on the ground and the would lean on the detection of adverse machines by the American web of satellite observation, whence, the importance of the satellite technologies skill, a point to which we shall come back, " Till now, the space was considered as theatre of military stakes which concern the communication, the reconnaissance and the surveillance, writes the General Randy Weidenheimer, USA Air Forces. Today, we should manage to use our satellites as real arms ".

But new American anti-missile program essential detail of the " Revolution in the Military Affaires " (RMA), as speak the strategists, exceeds the traditional international political desire not to use the circumterrestrial space. It risks really to relaunch purely and simply the armaments drive, as it returns, as Moscow has reminded, who challenges promptly to denounce the Russian - American agreement of the restriction of ABM anti-missile systems in 1972, as well as other agreements of strategic arms reduction. However it is in this context of a unilaterally and of relaunching the strategic armaments drive that Senate has rejected, the 13th of October 1999, the agreement of total interdiction of nuclear tests (CTBT), despite the President Clinton exhortations, " the USA relaunch an antimissile armaments drive which threaten the ensemble of disarmament agreements signed since more decades " affirms Phyllis Bennis, researcher in the USA Institute for Policy Studies.

Officially, the program TMD assumes to develop in Asia, probably in Japan and even in Taiwan, a protective anti-missile system intended to notify an attack from the rogue States, as Northern Korea. But behind this strategic axis theoretically turned against Northern Korea, Peking do not see anything else then a western system intended, since Asian Rimlands and islands to enclose and to contain China, as NATO and the Partnership For Peace enclose and expel Russia. Having repeated its determination to reintegrate Taiwan in Chinese block, Peking considers the development of the anti-missile systems on the national island as a real casus belli (an occasion to war) from the USA part. Besides Chinese mistrust can be only amplified after the bombardment episode of China embassy in Yugoslavia by the American planes during the war in Kosovo ", bombardments understood, in Peking and in Moscow", as warning thrown to the Eurasian giants recalcitrant to the American hegemony.

Therefore the American NDM program can not do anything then to encourage a the ensemble of the nuclear "anti-hegemonic" authorities - so " the Confucius - Islam axis ", feared by Huntington, that the axis Peking - Moscow-Teheran as well as India, through Russia - to cooperate more closely together and to increase the number of their nuclear charges and their projective ability to middle then long capacity. As explains Peter Maria Gallois, the American project of space defense returns " to induce the countries with limited arsenals, but sufficient to intimidate the increase of number of their arms that in case of a still essential quantity between them has reached its purposes, the reprisals remaining doubtful (...). Thus stimulated the "vertical" proliferation and indirectly, ' horizontally", as it will be necessary new tests to increase the national modest inventories, and to legalize the resumption of the experiments ". WE must not forget that Northern Korea has a missile Taepodong I, who, developed, could interfere at a large distance, which Iran seems to be engaged on the same way, so for the " explosive as for the "vectors"; and also that India and Pakistan, after China, have shown their respective nuclear capacities.

The threat for the world peace that constitutes this new armaments drive because of the New Cold War -east-west/north/south risk to be a heavy consequence for the stability and for the world peace during the next years. Certainly, USA affirm that the overwhelming technological and military superiority will dissuade any other power to use the strategic forces against the "West" " at least against USA, mainly if they are one day supplied with " a nuclear space umbrella", what is still far to be the case. But it is overlooked that the clashes nuclear dangers between the middle authorities are, as to them, detached, " the strategy of the "strong to the Weak ", even that of the " Mad to the Forceful" not sparing, in addition, the Europe and the USA of nuclear attacks " by saturation ", the anti-missile defense system being still far to be 100 % reliable.

But the relaunching of the superior armaments drive "(airspace and nuclear) disguise in the reality a real war, the " the drive of the economical drain" of nations. The same as during the cold war of USA pressed the USSR in engage militaries not productive spends connected in Stars war (IDS), which has destroyed Moscow and contributed to put on knees the "Harmful Empire", also this geoeconomic strategy of the strategic technologies drive has for purpose to destroy the enemy economic power, actual or virtual, as of " the allied competitor " to exhaust one by one the concurrents on the Large market of the Wall Street ", explains Paul Virilio, the boundaries separating these different notions (concurrent, enemy, opponent, ally, friend) having become vague, even impenetrable, in a context of economic war.

The USA intend to achieve their goals that the Anglo-Saxons strategists have always pursued: to subject finally the continental authority, to neutralize the Eurasian Heartland, since the peripheral lands - giving access to the domination of the world - to reach the global hegemony, the domination of the Heartland. WE remind the words of the strategist John Collins about the total superiority: paraphrasing Mackinder, who has declared that " that the one who commands the East Europe commands the Eurasia and the one who commands the Eurasia commands the whole world ", Collins explains that the one who controls the curcumterrestrial space; commands the Earth; the one who possesses the Moon controls the circumterrestrial space; the one who commands L4 and L5 commands the system Earth - Moon (L4 and L5 are the points of the space or gravitating attraction of the Moon and of the Earth is in perfect equivalence). In the American Foreign Affairs from May 1994, an article of Ethan B. Kapstein could attract attention of some chiefs: " For the first time in the modern history, a country is on the way to monopolize international trade of arms. The magnification and the diminution of the defense budget realize a pressure on the producers of ineffective arms , and the most fall under this pressure... At the beginning of the XXI century, USA will be the unique manufacturer of arms the more advanced, as the other countries will find out that the costs of financing the new program are too heavy to support.. This monopoly will be profitable for USA also as for the world community. The past shows that the States, which depend on the American arms, are less inclined than the others to enter in war with their neighbors... Ironically, the American monopoly will be suitable for the world economy. Once the inefficient defense industries come out from their expensive poverty, the governments can devote their poor resources to more productive purposes ".

Really, military American budget for one year 2000 in what the defense concerns, adopted by the Congress in October 1999, illustrates perfectly the American desire to acquire a global conclusive superiority and to distance finally on the technological plan, the enemies, the rivals and even the allies. With 267,8 milliards of dollars, the new budget of the American defense is not only the unique militaries western budget growing (+ 7 % in relation to 1999), but also that guarantee the largest priority of modernizing the equipment. By all means, if it comes, the new anti-missile program NTD will finish to exhaust, not only, the declared or non declared enemies of the USA (China, Russia, India, Northern Korea), but, on the same occasion, the european allies of USA themselves. Therefore, the technological and military total of USA is it, the key to the submission of the other authorities of the world to the Empire of the United States.

Better, this technological superiority almost irretrievable, even by the Europeans, allows to the new American Administrations reputed as "isolationist" " to release" military from the Europe or however, still continuing to exercise all also an intense hegemony, this time as much by the technique - strategic dependence that by direct enforcement.

The consequences of the occidental - American war against Serbia, of gravity still unsuspected, risk to make themselves feel during decades, so the arousing wounds are deep and the favorable precedents to the worst derive. If they appear, in a short time favorable to the USA, they are finally unprofitable to the vital interests of the Continental and Western Europe in its ensemble. They will have as main strategic effect to strengthen, to average and long-term, the positions of the " International Islamic", before placed between Pakistan and Afghanistan and maintained in Riyadh, today presents the totality of the Muslim world - except Iran and even in the Balkan Europe. Not speaking about the ultra-Turkish nationalism waking, in its post-kemalist version " neo-ottoman and pan-uranian, that the ethnic - religious irredentism and the desire of conquest is felt in all the Eurasia and Balkans, in China with the Thrace Greek passing through the " Large Albania" on the way of realization and Bosnia.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE TURKISH NOMINEE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:
A GEOPOLITICAL NOT - SENSE OR AN AMERICAN REQUEST?
Direct consequence of the war in Kosovo and of the amplification of the American hegemony and NATO in the Europe, the Fifteen have officially recognized " on the occasion of the European Council in Helsinki from 10-13-th of December 1999, Turkey's nominee on the entrance in the European Union, Ankara having henceforth the status of the (thirteenth) official candidate to adhere, status which is required without successes since 1963. Therefore, the large part of the chiefs of States and european managers are pleased of this new policy phase of the Union extension. For Jacques Chirac, " Turkey is european by its history, geography and ambitions (...) " 21. Considering this first as a political personal victory, the Turkish Prime Minister Bulen Ecevit kept, at the issue of the summit, one of the most optimistic press conferences: " the way is opened to a full adhesion, even if I am conscious that there is road which it is necessary to be accomplished () I am convinced that my country will adjoin to the European Union much more early that stipulated ", due to the reforms. However, we can ask if the declaration of faith democratic and in the favour of capital punishment abolition by the turks chiefs, from Tansu Ciller to Bulen Ecevit do not consist mainly to defuse a recurrent european reticence. Therefore the categorical refusal, from Ankara side to recognize the Armenian genocide -as witnessed the excited reactions caused in Turkey consequence of the voting, in the French Senate then French Parliament in November 2000 and in January 2001 (22) to recognize the Armenian genocide-, the multiplication of segregationist measures towards to the Christians of Turkey, as the recurrent prosecutions of the peoples Kurds or alevies, confirm the ambivalent and violent nature of the modern nationalist Turkey. Approximately with two millions of Alevis, and mainly with eleven millions of Kurds victims of prosecution of rare violence, not speaking about millions Muslims make turks descending from slaves and european employees, in mainly Greek, Turkey is an heterogeneous nation who has no other solution, to perpetuate, than to impose to these minorities an Islamic and pan-turanian identity mainly restored and imaginary.

Contrary to the fact that Turkey is a member of OTAN, OSCE and Council of the Europe, the European States have no interest at all to integrate in its ranks a State which will count in some decades more than 100 millions Muslims. For whom the commercial argument, this is a little convincing in this where Turkey has already the status of a country joined to EU, who allows exchanges without any obstacle from one hand and from the other. The numerous industrial developed States (USA, Country Members of the EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION of FREE TRADE, etc.) or developed (countries " COUNTRIES of AFRICA, CARIBBEAN SEA, PACIFIC OCEAN " signing of the Lome agreements ) trade with European Union by virtue of the agreements on free trade, preferential or custom union not hoping ever to be recognized as official candidates. The entrance of Turkey in the Union, contrary to what bombards with, some hegemonic Atlantic idea, it is not at all a vital necessity for the interest of the Europe. There are thus political and philosophical reasons, issued from Anglo-Saxon valor, free-changeable, written in the Atlantic Charter and continued in the sense of OMC and AMI, organizations however more and more discredited since the failure in Seattle at the end of 1999, which justify the acceptance, by the Europeans under the American tough pressure - the nominee of Ankara.

In a resounding article published in the newspaper Le Monde from the 4-th of March 1997 the former counselor of François Mitterrand, Jacques Attali, spunky Atlantis, justifies Turkish nominee, warning severely French responsible faces: " If France and Europe decide to affirm as a Christian club, they should be prepared for collision with one milliard people [Muslims], to a real war of civilizations. With firstly, in France, a civil war. As France in view of its preceding geopolitics choices, is a Muslim nation: Islam is a religion of more than two million French citizens and of third part of the immigrants on its earth". In a report which was ordered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the Europe's future, handed at the end of to Mister Vedrine, Mister Attali called again France " to promote that that it can not more avoid ". We will mark that Attali's formulation is turned in such a way that no other issue seems to be discussed, under the fear of wars and inevitable "misfortunes", that the end of the 20th century demonstrated amply to us that the civilised conflicts the most bloody, and other civil ethnic - religious local wars, appear most frequently inside the sovereign States or inside Federations where peoples of various civilizations or religions (Lebanon, Ethiopia, Sudan, ex- Yugoslavia, India -Kashmir, Indonesia, etc.) live. The demonstration of the former adviser Mitterrand is finally a "representation" forged to justify the civilized heterogeneity - thus the division -of the Europe, which would imply inevitably the eventual entrance of Turkey in the Union, and to press the Europeans conscious of this "anomaly" to accept, by humility, that represented as an ineluctable fact.

As to the "western" valors to which Brussels is identified: secularism, human rights" globalization, economic and philosophical liberalism, separation of military and political authorities, democracy, respect of ethnic - religious minority, etc., it is clear that Ankara has not observed. The representatives of the European Union present to the Summit in Helsinki in 1999 and to the Summit in Nice of December 2000 have however listed numerous items on which Ankara " should concentrate its efforts", enforcement already established , during the Summit in Copenhagen, in 1993 and which seems not having been at all followed of outcomes: the Human rights, in particular Kurd peoples of the Southeast Anatolia, cancellation of the capital punishment, Cyprus question, excessive role of the Army, in particular the suppression of the Council of National Safety (CNS), military, who remains always the supreme authority, and etc.. By the way CNS, it is necessary nevertheless to remind that this antidemocratic organ of military origin is on the basis of state revolution hardly latent which has overthrown the government of the Islamic Prime minister Necmettin Erbakan in 1997. Therefore, paradoxically, the "democratization" of Turkey - who passes through suppression of the military authority, the unique warranty of the modern Turkish state secularized - such as required by Brussels, would manage to guarantee the perpetuity of an eventual Islamic government represented in Strasbourg and Brussels in the case Turkey would enter the European Union. This contradiction shows that the acceptance criterions to enter the Union could not limit to the legal - constitutional criterions but they should include also the civilised aspect .

In its preface to the book of Vittorio Sanguineti on the extension of the European Union, Danielle Mitterrand denounced already in 1996 the pro - Turkish policy of Atlantis origin of the European Union: " our Turkish policy is a short-sighted policy (...). It headed our European leaders to admit the entrance, inside the customs European Union (1995), of this country managed by military dictatorship and adept to torture. Is it reasonable to include in a limited and well defined (from centuries) continent, the nations which do not make part neither geographically nor historically, and who mocks at the basis principles of the Union? The European Union is it inclined to risk accepting in its rinks destabilizing factor for the European cohesion ? " The violent manifestations anti-Italian, anti-French and anti-European occurred in Turkey after the arrest in Fiumicino airport in Rome of the Kurd leader Abdullah Oçalan, the 12 of October 1998, and after the voting of the French National Assembly tending to recognize officially the Armenian genocide (in June- July 1998), allow to understand how are the Europeans really perceived and how Ankara interprets the European and "western valors" to which it pretends to adhere. On the 15th of February 1999, Abdullal Oçalan will be arrested in Kenya by Turkish secret services (MIT) help by CIA, and extradited to Turkey, after having been abandoned by the Italian, German and Greek Governments, unable to resist to Ankara threats constituting a front of refusals with the other members of the European Union, it is against what Turkey could not do anything. " Turkey has won the party, comments the ambassador Sergio Romano, it certainly benefited of the USA support".

Each recognizes, in petto, that the Turkish request to adhere to the European Union is motivated by the economic and strategic interests (NATO logic, connections with the USA, "returning" in the Balkans, etc.) and that it is closely connected to the American strategy of " heterogeneity " of the European geo-civilised space. In no case, Turkey, with hardly 6 % of territory on the European continent, and that the culture, the geographical and the religious - origins are extra - European, it is not identified to the History of the European civilization, mainly after the Wall of Berlin falling, which has allowed Ankara to implant in the ex-USSR Muslim republics independent today. If Turkey enter one day the European Union, it is mainly because the USA, through NATO, intends in such a way to extend their influence and hegemony in Eurasia (to see infra). Certainly, there is a real pro- Turkish lobby inside the European Administration and Parliament, a lobby created inside a fringe, the most Atlantis and pro - American of political European parties (central, democratic Christian, conservative).

Since the sixties, Washington exercises in fact on the European Union constant pressures to force to admit Turkey in its ranks represented as "laic and pro-western State", even, since the "wars" in Gulf and in ex- Yugoslavia, occidental, "tout court", on the American and NATO sense of the term " West " (the concept of West has here the valor of << civillizational >> lure...). According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, " America should profit of its influence in the Europe in order to support the eventual admission of Turkey inside the European Union, and put an honorary point to be treated as an European State (...). If Turkey feels eliminated from the Europe (.. ...) it will be favorable for the Islam rise, who will make it capable to oppose its veto, by rancor, to the extension of NATO and will induce to refuse to cooperate with the West in its desire to stabilize and to integrate a laic Central Asia in the international community ". We find out, in proposals not very explicit, the principal reasons that thrust Washington to exercise pressure on Brussels that the Union to admit Turkey it its ranks; at first, key role of Turkey in the process of " westernizing " and of controlling, for the USA, of the Turkish-speaking and Muslim nations from the ex-USSR , holders of significant reserves of hydrocarbon and of passage zones of the future oil pipelines and gas conduits. Secondly, the fact that Turkey - "basis - state" according to Brzezinski - constitutes more, than ever, since the wars in Gulf and in ex-Yugoslavia, the Southern support of NATO, the main detail the Atlantic Organization from the Mediterranean sea up to the boundaries of China, passing through the Near East and these of Russia. Therefore the Turkish-speaking area confers to Ankara a main strategic depth and a geopolitical irreversible status for the USA, which can not count, in the present, on any other " basis State " of a similar range, so Eurasia as in the Near East, Saudi Arabia not being " a basis state ", Israel being less strategically useful, and Iran not being yet certified.

From its hand, Turkey realizes constantly pressures on the European and American chancelleries, reminding that its engagement inside NATO from the "Joint" western party, since the wars in Gulf and Yugoslavia, deserves some "identifications".

In case the European Union would insist to reject Turkish nominee, that which was the case since 1963, Ankara thus swung cleverly the double threat of a veto on the CECE (country of the East and central Europe) entrance in NATO "to convince" the Europeans, embarrassed, but Atlantis prisoners... As well as the refusal to let the new structure of the European defense to use the means of NATO if, Turkey is not closely associated to the new European defense. "The USA should at first promote the extension of European Union, as it will assure the stability from the european part of the Eurasian Continent and it will allow to extend the field covered by union of the Atlantic safety ", confirms Brzezinski. 78 days of bombardments of Serbia (" War in Kosovo "), marking in its manner the fiftieth anniversary of NATO and the American - Germanic-Turkish control on the Balkans, would have reason of forty years of the European fluctuations in relation to the entrance of Turkey in Europe. The pro - Turkish lobby in USA, with the annual budget of 8 million dollars, bases on joint action of the American Agencies of public relation as Hill and Knowlton (which struggled in Iraq), international Advisers and me Auliffe, Kelly, Raffaelli and Semens, maintained in the financially by the "American League for Export " and " Security Assistance ", co-ordinated by the former assistant to the secretary of state Powell Moore and Richard Perle, trustees of interests of the American industry of protection and aeronautics. Agree to Italian diplomat Vittorio Sanguineti, the purposes of "the Turkish American lobby " aspire, in exchanges of privileges for commercial contracts in Turkey, to correspond to the main diplomatic inquiries of Ankara:

1/ full integration of Turkey in the European union;
2/ freedom of action in occupation of north island of Cyprus;
3/ block any action, aspiring to recognize the Armenian genocide (decision accepted by the European Parliament in 1991 but rejected American Senate in 1992);
4/ leave free court to anti-Kurd punishment.

More globally, Turkey plays, according to the American strategists, a resolute role in delivery to the West of petroleum and gas of Caspian Sea. They interfere then on a way of the future oil pipelines, the project of a line of Baku - Ceylon. Signed in November 1999 under covering of the big fire of the Chechen Republic and Dagestan, this, allowing to the Turkish, to the Azerbaijani, to the Georgian and American societies to leave a line passing by the Caucasus-North (the Chechen Republic - Dagestan), for the benefit of the project protected by Turkey. So during the OSCE Summit in Istanbul November 1999, Bill Clinton has signed, with Presidents Démirel (Turkey), Aliev (Azerbaijan) and Chevarnadzé (Georgia), the union on Caucasus and Black Sea, making a strong anti-Russian lock, whose European changes will be Bulgaria (also cajoled by Clinton for its strategic position near Turkey and its role of transit territory to the West), Macedonia, occupied by NATO and a third part by the Albanian, and Bosnia, real protectorate, with Kosovo, of the NATO and USA, even more, than the United Nations. As a matter of fact the American-Turkish-Azerbaijani-Georgian contract seals the inevitable project of oil pipeline Bakou-Ceyhan." Les laissés - pour -comptes" (the left over), of this contract - Armenia, closed in the Caucasian refuge and surrounded by two enemy Muslim authorities, and Russia which will lose the control above delivery of hydrocarbons of Caspian Sea. Contrary to official speeches, the European heads, more inclined to be good pupils of the USA and the NATO than to protect interests and safety of their nations, many bases should force to remain Europeans skeptical, as to the admission of Turkey in the European union. But acknowledgement of the entrance of Turkey in the European Union would not be allowed, that we have named " war of representations ", war of messages and management of concepts according to which Turkey has appeared as more " European " and "more western" than Russia itself.

" WAR OF REPRESENTATIONS ", STRATEGIC PARAMOUNT PURPOSES
Especially attractive, the concepts - keys of "civilization", and "West" are in the center of process of legalization and speech of "Allies" when they undertake retaliatory operations in Iraq or in ex-Yugoslavia already more than "ten years" or still, when they justify the entrance of Turkey inside the European Union for the name of "Atlanticism and on behalf of this same "West". As a fact, for the American strategists and supporters of western ideology, the concept of the West does not appoint any historical European-western civilization, a Jewish-Christian substratum. Here, "West" means the unit of Euro -Atlantic and global unifying potentially not only America, the Western Europe and Japan, but as well Turkey, the Turkish-speaking people and Caucasian as well as all other western nations which will join the advanced capitalist world (Davos) headed by the USA. It is paradoxical, but this concept of the West which includes Turkey and Japan, rejects rather cleanly one of the main European nations : Russia, as to it located in the category of the western nations. As it is seen, we deal with historical and ideological restoration and representations, closely connected with " the general strategy" of the USA, described earlier and in the "new cold war " which puts always in stage, on the one hand, " the Good of the West ", on the other hand, " the Bad of the East ", these last being indifferent, Asians, Slav-orthodox or Arabian Moslems. Also, the representation "West" - or "Occidentism" to take the statement of Russian sociologist Alexandre Zinoviev - makes the semantic weapon, one " deceives << civilisational>> ", serving mainly to hide and cover American hegemonic behind a western slope geo-civilisational, and mainly to deceive Europe and to involve it in the dangerous undertaken " the American West ", thus to plant the responsibility and deep strategic motivations of the behind the Atlantic governments as much as to legalize the ideological point of view and "civilisational".

Strategically, the Europe, the Old European continent as a whole, risks to pay very much for the account of the "westernizing" and for the strategic duty of "atlanticism", simple G-strings of full submission to USA: being divided by internal part, being interrupted in two by the new "Iron Curtain civilizational " both social and economic, and taken in pincers between the revanchist Islamic South and the destructive American hegemonies "West" of persons (commercial pseudo-culture "Mc World", analyzed by the American sociologist Benzhamen Barber), the Europe does not seem ready to accept to eliminate serious challenges of the 21 century which risk simply to make it disappear as a plurimillenary civilization if it does not react very quickly.


THE BIG EUROPE from PORTUGAL TO RUSSIA: THE UNIQUE POSSIBLE ANSWER FOR AMERICAN HEGEMONIC STRATEGY
To antipodes of the "Atlanticism" geopolitics concepts and finally Anglo-Saxon, of the "western" Europe, separated from the Russian-Slav lung and taken in pincers between the Americanization and winning pan- Turkish, only " the Big continental Europe " uniting " two lungs", western and post-Byzantine, is capable, in our opinion to accept geostrategic calls of the 21 century.

The ideal strategic backbone of this Big Europe would be made ideally by the axis Paris-Berlin-Moscow - if only Germany refused once and for all the old pan-Germanic demons and played sincerely the game of European unity, the fundamental European axis East/West and big - continental, offered by the French strategists as various, as well-known, that general Henri Paris or General Francois Clerc, the former head of the state - the military doctor of the Eurobody and the present pioneer of Europe of Protection .

Some notice, not without a top of irony, that the realization of an ambitious confederate big European project, involving Russia and the states, the poor post-Byzantine world in the rich "western" space and Atlantic the Western Europe, simply unreal and utopian. Utopian will reveal certainly our offer to include progressively Russia and the Slav-orthodox world inside the European architectural complex, "realists" reminding, that the Big Europe may not force to live in common Russians and peoples colonized by the Soviet Empire. But then why those, who let out this "realistic" objection, assert in parallel, and with force of authority and diligence, that it is absolutely lawful, coherent, natural (Jacques Chirac), even vital and urgent (Attali) to suppose Turkey, however the former century enemy of Europe, inside the Union?

Russia would be "more menacing "," less western ", less democratic " and finally "less compatible" with the Europe, than the nationalistic Turkey created on ashes of the genocide of one and a half of one million of Armenians, the removal of two millions of Greeks and returnable prosecution of Christian minority, Alevies and Kurds of Turkey? The question would deserve at least to be established. One can see, all - is actually a question of postulates and subjectivity geopolitics, inconsistent representations. In time, Europe should not earn anything however to prefer Turkey of Russia, to be cut from the orthodox world and not to include inside, but candidates pleasing to Washington and staffs of the NATO. Europe, if it wants to be able to accept the challenges of the 21 century, certainly, should support good relations with Ankara, already a member of the Council of Europe and OSCE - not negligible forums of coordination - and the European Customs union, but it should persistently and up to any thing unite the members of the western civilization, keepers of the common cultural property and menaced the same misfortunes.

As a fact, the basic Utopia, inherent in any ambitious geopolitics project, may be also reconciled with the pragmatism and the realism. In addition, it will be necessary to occur by turns, similarly to the numerous nations, which were constructed during centuries around of the small central nomenclature of products as France " capétienne". In the same way, that the financial and Economic union has incorporated in three stages, methodically supervising the European Currency Institute, then the European Central Bank together with each of National Central Banks for no serious force could oppose to this effectively, it seems to us possible to carry out this project of the Big Europe in three or four consecutive stages and by creation of some specialized additional establishments.

Therefore, the first task will be to reform the European union in confederate direction and to supply it with the strategic and geopolitics clear project. The construction of new establishments will begin from bodies of foreign Policy, Protection and Safety, as well as the new All-European Confederate Contract (PCP) giving force of the law to an effective autonomy of the member states of Europe of the "twenty seven" (if it is to be located in the long term integration